Quisling on the Golan

Over at Haaretz, the Quisling Victor Kattan argues against American recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s formal recognition of the Golan Heights - captured from Syria in the June 1967 War - as part of Israel could be considered even more dangerous than his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Jerusalem.

The author argues:

Israel’s claim to the Golan Heights is based on security, not legal title. The territory was never included in the British mandate of Palestine. It was never promised to the Jewish people by the League of Nations. It was never mentioned in the UN Partition Plan. It was part of the French mandate for Syria, and part of the Syrian Arab Republic before it was captured.

Security. No shit, for real? 

Yes when one bombards people from high ground some will take umbrage or the Golan! Hence the Israeli occupation for 52 years and counting.

Kattan goes on:

Let me be clear: Israel’s decision to annex the Golan Heights was legally wrong, not just because the Security Council or any other state said it was wrong. It was wrong because the international community has prohibited the acquisition of territory by war since 1945. And the reason why the international community prohibited recognizing the acquisition of territory by armed conflict was in order to discourage further conflict by revisionist powers.

As if legalism mean anything to the likes of Assad, Nasrallah, etc etc.

Oh my sweet summer child. This is not a law school internationl mute court. This is the Middle East. 

My sweet summer child indeed.

*Via my friend Sarah Abed.

Iran: In range

Richard Fernandez argues that Iran is over extended and may have fallen into a strategic trap:

But is it a nightmare for Israel or has Iran has fallen into a strategic trap too good for its enemies to miss? The IDF, while formidable, is short-ranged. Its conflicts have all been fought on the border or within Israel itself. The United States, though able to project power long distances, did not have the political will or the obvious justification to mount a military action against Tehran. Thus, while the Islamic Republic of Iran stayed within its borders it was probably safe from any meaningful American or Israeli threat.

As noted before, the Iranian attack on Israel struck us as rather weak while Israel responded with biblical level fire and fury. By butting up against Israel, Iran has put its own military in range of the world's last great 20th century style mechanized army.*

Which is why Iran's strategy in Lebanon made so much sense. Here is an arsenal of tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, concealed within the Lebanese infrastructure with the Lebanese themselves as human shields.

Why put your own military in the IDF's crosshairs?

*Oh, and the South Koreans.